Patrick Stephen Mangan

Along with what @itsmassive said, just = fair, an equal level of response and reaction, or ^retribution. Most historical definitions of justice have not actually been just at all, I think because they've been derived from the idea of breaking with perfection, or the dictates of a perfect and "righteous" god or state. And that if you break with perfection from what is "righteous/good," then it would be justice that any and all evil be done to you, which isn't actually just or equal at all. Rational justice would be more like a mathematical equation, or balancing a scale. To answer the question in the subject line, I think that objective/rational equal reaction justice is universal, and justice based on abstracts that do not exist based on empirical logic and evidence is cultural.

I pretty much agree, and it's kind of what I'm addressing here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40487-succinctpracticle-upbdo-unto-others/. Let me know what you think?

I think it can encompass aggression generally, and it's all relative to the level/severity of aggression, how unjust it is, and how long it goes on for without being responded to/without the other person escaping, or having the ability to escape, I.e. Children with their parents. You're probably right, but neither would you put up with someone being a jerk to you for long periods of time without trying to put a stop to it/escaping it some how. Assertiveness can by the same level of "aggression" and therefore justified. If you choose to remain just a victim, then I think you are letting yourself be psychologically damaged. However, if you respond with a higher level of aggression (I.e. Physical aggression) then you're escalating the situation, and your aggression is not justified, breaking UPB and causing psychological damage in the other direction, as the dominator. I would think that the more unjust you are compared to the other person, the more of a mental contradiction it is, and the more psychological damage it causes. I don't know if this topic belongs here in the philosophy forum, or in the psychology forum, lol. I think a generally good goal to have would be to match other people's level of "aggression" as close as possible, and to use your best judgement, for your own protection and for other people's protection (i.e. If you think domestic violence is happening near by), and for everyone's psychological health and prosperity, and as close to real time as we can, so that we/the society we create doesn't dominate others with vengeful punishment long after their aggressive actions.

I think I've modified my original idea slightly. Sure you can be nice proactively. How beneficial is it for you to keep being super nice guy if that person never really reciprocates? However, I think it's more about levels of aggression that is the bigger concern, at least that's what I'm focusing on now. If someone you meet isn't really saying anything, but you start being super nice guy, you aren't being more aggressive towards that person than he's being towards you. It's pretty much no "aggression" either way, unless he's like "dude stop talking to me," then you might want to respect his wishes. What do you think about this picture?

Just had a thought. I don't know if it's accurate, but could the psychological damage of being an unjust aggressor (or not responding to aggression / not being able to escape it) come from the contradictions in the mind? Because the mind, on a subconscious level, knows that an unjust aggressive action isn't UPB?

I can buy that. I actually think that UPB might be too mind twisting for the common person, at least until they really delve into philosophy. So perhaps this idea is separate from UPB? I still maintain that it is universalizing someone's level of aggression (or the lack there of) back to them for your own safety and health, and not treating others unjustly or more aggressively for the sake of your own psychological health. Maybe it's a more all encompassing and more accurate description of the NAP? To combine it with self defense? I was thinking, perhaps it's the "Equal Aggression Principle."

I agree. I do think that my whole approach here is to figure out what is most prudent and psychologically healthy. Of course, we can do whatever we want, but there is such a thing as achieving greater states of psychological health, or having that health be damaged, based on how we treat others, and how others treat us.What do you guys think of this photo I've attached below? I could be wrong about the left right stuff, but I think I'm spot on about which causes psychological damage and which improves it. The Star of David has no religious context here, it's used for its original purpose, psychological health. If rights are properties, then we can do anything that we want. But it's good to be informed of the consequences of our actions. As an example, taxation is unjust aggression/threats of attack on the part of the government, because taxation isn't equal self defense against people, but it's the initiation of force when the people haven't done anything to "government". That puts government in the red domination position, and damages the psychology of everyone involved (power trip).It's all made possible because people didn't defend themselves against taxation when a government was first installed. They cowered to the threat instead of responding to it with self defense, which puts those people in the blue submissive position, damaging their psychology also. Now the government is so large that it would obviously be unhealthy to take them on with aggression, we'd probably be killed. But if we could and could succeed, it would be better for the psychological profile of society at large. All we can really do right now is oppose government philosophically, but that's at least psychologically better than not opposing their injustice at all.

I think this is a good encapsulation of the general principle and idea.

I agree about the first point. To the second, "do unto others as they do unto you," is universalizing other people's actions, to show them what it's like to be treated in the manner that they are treating others. People are automatically treating people a certain way when they come in contact with them, even if it's doing nothing by default. So automatically, if they do nothing or say nothing to you, you can respond with the same treatment. But there's also nothing "more severe" in smiling and being nice to them. I think the idea is that you can respond to people however you like, it's probably most prudent to respond with equal treatment, but you just shouldn't respond in a way that is more severe or damaging than how you were treated, i.e. putting someone in jail for smoking a joint is unjust on the part of the government, because putting someone in jail is more severe and damaging than the initial action of that person smoking a joint.

Basically, a way to put UPB that everyone can easily understand and might be willing to follow. "You can do anything to others, as long as they do it first," in the present tense. Giving the freedom of any action, but taking away the ability to anitiate it, which includes the initiation of force. It's a general principle, but "DO anything to others" implies physical contact specifically. This is what I put on facebook and fleshed out for my friends and family: I've obviously been going through and listening to a lot of Freedomain Radio. Through it and his book of the same title, you can learn Stefan's proof of a secular method of rational ethics, Universally Preferable Behavior. Trying to wrap my head around it, I've been thinking of what a succinct way to describe it, or ethics in general, would be. The healthiest way to be ethical is to treat others the way that they treat people, and the way that they treat you. To meet their behavior with equal behavior in kind. An evil person who harms people does not deserve a good persons friendship. It is not advantageous or productive to meet an abuser with love, even though we might have been brought up that way. An abuser will not feel the pain he is inflicting on others until the same behavior is mirrored back to him, which is actually self defense, or defense of others. Of course it is neither advantageous to put yourself in such a situation, but sometimes, we find ourselves there. Limiting the severity of the retribution to be equal to the other persons behavior ensures that we don't overreact. If a person steals an apple from me, and if I choose to pursue retribution, an equal and opposite response is merely to steal the apple back. Evil is kept at bay when good people respond to it, when we become the agents of justice and karma. Of course, rights are optional, so we could choose to do nothing. And we take all outcomes into consideration. So I would not take this specific retribution because of the outcome, but if this holds up, I would also have the right to meet government taxation with my own equal taxation of government. Voluntary and non-compulsory trade is already a freely agreed upon exchange of behavior, and retribution for that behavior, such as a payment. That is not the case with taxation. This goes all the way up to the good levels of behavior, that if someone treats me with love, that I should also treat them with love. However, if that same person treats someone else with abuse, then I should at least point it out, and respond to that behavior with abuse - defending the third party to the severity that the third party is being harmed. ---- One more thought. The idea above is "do unto others as they do unto you, and as they do to others." Which is different than the golden rule, "do unto others as you WOULD HAVE them do unto you." Here's the thing. If a person totally lived by the golden rule, then they could not use force in physical defense. They couldn't really defend themselves at all. The golden rule contradicts defense and self defense, because you would not "have" a person use self defense against you if you were an attacker, in which case, if you lived by the golden rule, you could not use self defense, either physically or verbally. Which is utterly corrupt.

Hey, I'm from Tacoma too. Ran a search here for Tacoma. I think it would be cool if we found other listeners, or at least other anarcho-capitalists to do meetups with, discussions, hang out, or something.

People seem to like this idea in the Facebook group. I was saying that a list of therapists who are FDR fans would be very helpful if I could find one in my area, but it might be easier just to ask you all who your recommendations or who your current therapist is, if you're willing to put up that information. I'd trust anyone you guys recommended, & they would be at the top of my list, & would probably get where I'm coming from the most. If you post your recommendation, you can post the city & state also to make this topic searchable for anyone else looking in their area. Thanks for your help!

...

Superstitious Christians yes, or else they recognize the damage it will do to the people you know, not to mention how fucked up everything has to be to get there to the point where you're not having a good life and have given up trying to fix things. Most are sad that tragedy happens, & rather than being happy, "hope & pray" that as many as possible went to heaven depending on their version of what they are supposed to believe or pray. Irrational I know but at least they don't want people to die. Only a radical minority would be happy about it. I've heard of bad experiences, similar to descriptions of bad drug trips, where they come out of it wanting to be better people and treat people better, because what they experience seems to be a just punishment for how they have been treating people. But that's where the savior mythology steps in to tell Christians that they'll be saved from all that regardless. You're still assuming it would cause all these problems & everybody would kill themselves for some reason if they "knew" there was an after life. They have to invent the savior mythology because they intuit that their psychological problems & guilt will carry over if they don't deal with those problems here. Weather it's legitimate guilt from violating the non aggression principle, or invented guilt from the clergy turning every other action under the sun into a sin, is another matter entirely. I thought that we are going by this principle: that the more accurate humanity's knowledge & perspective of truth is (aka taxation is theft), the better life we can make for ourselves & the less we will aggress against others.Now you are saying in this example: if an afterlife did exist & was scientifically verified, that everyone acting on that knowledge of the truth would fuck up society, economics, relationships, & life in general. Seems like an inconsistency.

of course it doesn't but I'm talking about how they behave, & they don't behave like theRobin's example.